Republicans have no answer to this simple chart

[Craig234]

We could talk all about the '96 welfare reform. I'm sure you remember the predictions that millions of kids would be out on the streets hungry if it passed. It was great legislation which got more people off welfare and into work and did not have the horrifying affects its opponents predicted. If you remember Bill Clinton took office saying we were going to change welfare as we know it. Even Democrats then knew how bloated the welfare roles were and incentives for one to want to get off were so out of whack.

Wrong. If you want to talk about false claims of harm from a policy, EVERY Republican got it TOTALLY wrong about Clinton's first budget designed to reduce the deficit - saying it would destroy the economy, raise unemployment, reduce economic growth, create inflation, and many other harms. It's the best test of Democratic versus Republican economic policy in decades and the budget did the opposite of what the Republicans said.

The Clinton policy on welfare reform DID hurt a lot of people. I'm not going to bother getting and posting details because you would only ignore the info and repeat what you said as you always do. But since then, inequality has risen, mobility has decreased, poverty has increased - all the things said.

In other words, to Republicans, good news on the move to plutocracy. By the way, I'm open to discuss on 'welfare reform' and some changes - but Republicans are not in a position to have that discussion. They're for scorched earth.

 

[Flash]

Hey, cawacko ignores what he is told and repeats his same false statements, as he always has done.

It was a bi-partisan project, not a Reagan policy. Reagan and O'Neill. Yes, some progressives disagree with me as you said - and what I said is just one option for fixing it to show how easily it can be done.

I said Reagan because it was during his presidency and he signed it just as I say the budget was balanced under Clinton although that was also bi-partisan with Gingrich--just shorthand.

The reason I don't favor raising the cap is because that is a great cost to many while cutting unnecessary benefits and beneficiaries has no real cost; especially in the future while abolishing the cap creates long-term costs.

 

[Craig234]

Reagan hurt S.S.? Please look at what Democrats in Congress did to S.S. in the '70's if you want to talk about hurting S.S. They said the trust fund would last 50 years and it lasted maybe five? Reagan stepped in and fixed that.

You're calling others ideologues but your whole premise here is Democrats = Good, Republicans = Bad so you have to try and fit everything that happened into that framework.

Uh, I'm open to Democrats having made mistakes, and have good things to say about what Reagan and O'Neill did on that issue.

You're ignorant what ideology is - if Republicans are wrong on 100 of 100 issues, then saying that is the opposite of ideology. I'm not trying to fit anything into anything, I'll leave that to you. If Republicans get something right, I'll give them credit.

 

[cawacko]

Hey, cawacko ignores what he is told and repeats his same false statements, as he always has done.

It was a bi-partisan project, not a Reagan policy. Reagan and O'Neill. Yes, some progressives disagree with me as you said - and what I said is just one option for fixing it to show how easily it can be done.

LOL, who are you talking to? I'm right here. Be a man Craig and talk to me, don't cry to someone who isn't reading this thread.

Actually it was the Greenspan Commission that delivered the recommendations for S.S. to Reagan and Congress which was ultimately signed into law.

What I said wasn't false.

 

[Craig234]

I said Reagan because it was during his presidency and he signed it just as I say the budget was balanced under Clinton although that was also bi-partisan with Gingrich--just shorthand.

That sounds reasonable and helps you sleep at night, but you're wrong.

We had 12 years of hugely inflated deficits under Reagan/Bush. When he became president, he submitted a budget he specifically said was for deficit reduction - it included a tax increase on the rich. Every Republican said it would cause great harm, and it passed without a vote to spare and no Republican votes, and did the opposite of what Republicans had said, in the best test of the two parties in decades.

The first two years of Clinton's presidency, Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, and the deficit decreased the same consistent amount it continued to the rest of his presidency. Republicans not only get zero credit for those two years, they fought tooth and nail to PREVENT the deficit reduction policies. So the best that can be said for them is that they didn't break the deficit reduction the next six years. Republicans just want to re-write history to claim credit for it.

The reason I don't favor raising the cap is because that is a great cost to many while cutting unnecessary benefits and beneficiaries has no real cost; especially in the future while abolishing the cap creates long-term costs.

That doesn't even deserve a response. People making well into six figures would suffer, while the benefits to those getting them, the poor, don't need them, you say.

 

[cawacko]

Uh, I'm open to Democrats having made mistakes, and have good things to say about what Reagan and O'Neill did on that issue.

You're ignorant what ideology is - if Republicans are wrong on 100 of 100 issues, then saying that is the opposite of ideology. I'm not trying to fit anything into anything, I'll leave that to you. If Republicans get something right, I'll give them credit.

You are correct, there is a difference between ideology and being a partisan. You are calling others ideologues while being deeply partisan.

 

[cawacko]

That sounds reasonable and helps you sleep at night, but you're wrong.

We had 12 years of hugely inflated deficits under Reagan/Bush. When he became president, he submitted a budget he specifically said was for deficit reduction - it included a tax increase on the rich. Every Republican said it would cause great harm, and it passed without a vote to spare and no Republican votes, and did the opposite of what Republicans had said, in the best test of the two parties in decades.

The first two years of Clinton's presidency, Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, and the deficit decreased the same consistent amount it continued to the rest of his presidency. Republicans not only get zero credit for those two years, they fought tooth and nail to PREVENT the deficit reduction policies. So the best that can be said for them is that they didn't break the deficit reduction the next six years. Republicans just want to re-write history to claim credit for it.





That doesn't even deserve a response. People making well into six figures would suffer, while the benefits to those getting them, the poor, don't need them, you say.

That's some spin even James Carville would be proud of. Well done sir.

 

[Craig234]

LOL, who are you talking to? I'm right here. Be a man Craig and talk to me, don't cry to someone who isn't reading this thread.

Actually it was the Greenspan Commission that delivered the recommendations for S.S. to Reagan and Congress which was ultimately signed into law.

What I said wasn't false.

My post was about and to you. You don't understand that? Reagan and O'Neill both appointed people to the commission and they worked together on the project. It's false to claim it was only a Reagan policy - you did not mention O'Neill.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...l-security-deal-in-1983-showed-it-can-be-done

 

[Craig234]

That's some spin even James Carville would be proud of. Well done sir.

Go waste someone else's time.

 

[Craig234]

You are correct, there is a difference between ideology and being a partisan. You are calling others ideologues while being deeply partisan.

There was zero partisan in my post - but YOU are partisan, resulting in your opinion there is.

 

[cawacko]

That sounds reasonable and helps you sleep at night, but you're wrong.

We had 12 years of hugely inflated deficits under Reagan/Bush. When he became president, he submitted a budget he specifically said was for deficit reduction - it included a tax increase on the rich. Every Republican said it would cause great harm, and it passed without a vote to spare and no Republican votes, and did the opposite of what Republicans had said, in the best test of the two parties in decades.

The first two years of Clinton's presidency, Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, and the deficit decreased the same consistent amount it continued to the rest of his presidency. Republicans not only get zero credit for those two years, they fought tooth and nail to PREVENT the deficit reduction policies. So the best that can be said for them is that they didn't break the deficit reduction the next six years. Republicans just want to re-write history to claim credit for it.





That doesn't even deserve a response. People making well into six figures would suffer, while the benefits to those getting them, the poor, don't need them, you say.

Clinton cut taxes in '97 and, gasp, the economy took off. How did that ever happen?

 

[Ralph]

Wrong. If you want to talk about false claims of harm from a policy, EVERY Republican got it TOTALLY wrong about Clinton's first budget designed to reduce the deficit - saying it would destroy the economy, raise unemployment, reduce economic growth, create inflation, and many other harms. It's the best test of Democratic versus Republican economic policy in decades and the budget did the opposite of what the Republicans said.

The Clinton policy on welfare reform DID hurt a lot of people. I'm not going to bother getting and posting details because you would only ignore the info and repeat what you said as you always do. But since then, inequality has risen, mobility has decreased, poverty has increased - all the things said.

In other words, to Republicans, good news on the move to plutocracy. By the way, I'm open to discuss on 'welfare reform' and some changes - but Republicans are not in a position to have that discussion. They're for scorched earth.

Facts in evidence: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGooHl2R_YB

Truth: Today the US Government spends 16x more on welfare than it did when the great society programs (the war on poverty) started. Yet.....according the US Governments own records.....the poverty level in the us remains virtually unchanged.

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality


Educate yourself and stop drinking the propaganda kool aid the left is handing out as truth. I dare you to debunk anything presented by Ben Shaprio or the Heritage Foundation via a presentation of demonstrable, objective, testable reproducible facts in evidence. Go for it. Unlike your left wing sources the Heritage Foundation references and documents all their sources making it readily TESTABLE for FACTS in EVIDENCE.

Your parroted ad hominem propaganda is just that.....worthless talk.

Since the 60s the US has spent some 20+ Trillion dollars on the countless social giveways of Big Brother...which equals 3x the cost of all WARS in US HISTORY from the revolution to date.

But....the socialists continue to cry....more soup please after having wasted this tax payer monies while the poverty index remains virtually unchanged from the first penny ever spent on fighting the WAR ON POVERTY. Proving what? Giving money to people not to work, not to get married, not to educate themselves simply does not work. Is it really a quinkidink that the US is 20 Trillion in debt?

 

[Ralph]

Next: A brief truthful history of Social Security....referenced from SNOOPS.

1. FDR (a democrat) introduced Social Security to the nation..i.e., FICA, making promises.

A. Participation in the retirement program would be on a strictly volunteer basis
B. Those who chose to participate would pay only 1% of the 1st $1400 dollars earned each year.
C. That money would be completely TAX DECUTIBLE when filing your income taxes.
D. That retirement money would be placed into a separate TRUST and never become part of the general revenue...and would be used only to pay SS benefits.
E. Also there was a "promise" that this annuity would never be subject to income taxes after one retired.

As there most certainly are more than a few who are on this board and are now receiving their SS Benefits....we are now surprised to find out that 85% of the income is considered TAXABLE. What happened and who is to blame as documented via the congressional record and history actual?

WHICH POLITICAL PARTY TOOK SOCIAL SECURITY OUT OF THIS SUPPOSED "LOCKED TRUST FUND" AND MADE IT PART OF THE GENERAL REVENUE TO BE BORROWED AND SPENT AS THE POLITCIANS SAW FIT?

It Was LBJ and the democrats who controlled both houses at that time period. Prove me wrong.

WHICH PARTY ELIMINATED THE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR "FICA/SOCIAL SECURITY"?

The Democratic Party

WHICH PARTY STARTED TAXING SOCIAL SECURITY ANNUNITIES?

The democratic party with "Al Gore"...the vice president, casting the tie breaking vote

WHICH PARTY STARTED GIVING SOCIAL SECURITY ANNUNITIES TO IMMIGRANTS WHO HAD NEVER PAID INTO THE TRUST?

It was Jimmy peanut Carter who gave any immigrant that was 65 years old SSI benefits.



Today...after doing all this lying and cheating....the democrats attempt to blame the republicans for attempting to take away their Social Security Rights?

The sad fact? The gullible, uninformed ignorant....believe that it is the conservatives that are attempting to toss granny under the political bus. As they continue to go to the voting both and vote democrat...you can see the tire tracks up their backs. The old, just like the blacks in this nation have been played and gamed way to long.

What I find strange is the fact the left fights "tooth and nail" to stop any legislation that would take this retirement trust out of the hands of the politicians and into the hands of professional investors and a LOCKED TRUST The Rail Road Retirement system is being managed by non-politicians and that trust has never been in the red. Things that make you go...hummmmmmmmmm! When a TRUST is truly locked away from democrat politicians.

 

[Flash]

Next: A brief truthful history of Social Security.

1. FDR (a democrat) introduced Social Security to the nation..i.e., FICA, making promises.

A. Participation in the retirement program would be on a strictly volunteer basis
B. Those who chose to participate would pay only 1% of the 1st $1400 dollars earned each year.
C. That money would be completely TAX DECUTIBLE when filing your income taxes.
D. That retirement money would be placed into a separate TRUST and never become part of the general revenue...and would be used only to pay SS benefits.
E. Also there was a "promise" that this annuity would never be subject to income taxes after one retired.

As there most certainly are more than a few who are on this board and are now receiving their SS Benefits....we are now surprised to find out that 85% of the income is considered TAXABLE. What happened and who is to blame as documented via the congressional record and history actual?

WHICH POLITICAL PARTY TOOK SOCIAL SECURITY OUT OF THIS SUPPOSED "LOCKED TRUST FUND" AND MADE IT PART OF THE GENERAL REVENUE TO BE BORROWED AND SPENT AS THE POLITCIANS SAW FIT?

It Was LBJ and the democrats who controlled both houses at that time period. Prove me wrong.

WHICH PARTY ELIMINATED THE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR "FICA/SOCIAL SECURITY"?

The Democratic Party

WHICH PARTY STARTED TAXING SOCIAL SECURITY ANNUNITIES?

The democratic party with "Al Gore"...the vice president, casting the tie breaking vote

WHICH PARTY STARTED GIVING SOCIAL SECURITY ANNUNITIES TO IMMIGRANTS WHO HAD NEVER PAID INTO THE TRUST?

It was Jimmy peanut Carter who gave any immigrant that was 65 years old SSI benefits.



Today...after doing all this lying and cheating....the democrats attempt to blame the republicans for attempting to take away their Social Security Rights?

The sad fact? The gullible, uninformed ignorant....believe that it is the conservatives that are attempting to toss granny under the political bus. As they continue to go to the voting both and vote democrat...you can see the tire tracks up their backs. The old, just like the blacks in this nation have been played and gamed way to long.

What I find strange is the fact the left fights "tooth and nail" to stop any legislation that would take this retirement trust out of the hands of the politicians and into the hands of professional private sector TRUSTS. The Rail Road Retirement system is being managed by non-politicians and that trust has never been the red. Things that make you go...hummmmmmmmmm!

This is all based on false information. Social Security is not part of the general fund. Before the change SS was not included in the total federal budget; today it is included and is the single largest expenditure. That did not put the money in the general fund--it is still in a separate trust fund and the only benefits paid from that trust come from SS taxes. All those other "promises" are also not true.

 

[cawacko]

This is all based on false information. Social Security is not part of the general fund. Before the change SS was not included in the total federal budget; today it is included and is the single largest expenditure. That did not put the money in the general fund--it is still in a separate trust fund and the only benefits paid from that trust come from SS taxes. All those other "promises" are also not true.

To be clear the "trust fund" is an accounting gimmick. They have taken surpluses from the trust fund basically since the program was created and used them in the general fund.

 

[Flash]

To be clear the "trust fund" is an accounting gimmick. They have taken surpluses from the trust fund basically since the program was created and used them in the general fund.

That is somewhat misleading. The original SS law required any surplus to be placed in special treasury securities (about 2% interest). SS was basically pay-as-you-go with revenues roughly equaling benefits until the 1980s when they raised SS taxes to 6.2% to prepare for the retirement of baby boomers 2010-2030.

When anybody buys a treasury we are lending the government money to be repaid with interest. Some of that borrowing is from other government agencies like SS (public debt vs. intragovernmental debt). That money is spent by the general fund whether it was borrowed from China, a citizen's savings bond, or SS and becomes part of our national debt.

The interest from the SS treasuries is spent to cover the shortfall between SS revenues and benefits and as benefits increase the treasuries will be redeemed. So, just as the government has always repaid principal and interest on treasuries it will continue to do so.
So, all that surplus is there and will be spent on SS benefits. Nobody acted improperly--the funds are being handled as intended. It is better to have that surplus in treasuries to earn interest rather than just sitting there.

 

[Craig234]

Clinton cut taxes in '97 and, gasp, the economy took off. How did that ever happen?

As usual you ignore the post made to you. I'm about done with the nonsense.

 

[Nordberg]

To be clear the "trust fund" is an accounting gimmick. They have taken surpluses from the trust fund basically since the program was created and used them in the general fund.

To be clear, no it is not. It was put in American bonds, backed by the full faith and trust of the US government. If those bonds are not worth anything, we have worse problems than SS. The SS trust fund was started by Greenspan and Moynahan to deal with the baby boomers. It was not exactly genius. They increased the SS tax for boomers ,so they would pay their own SS. But that money was put into bonds.

 

[cawacko]

To be clear, no it is not. It was put in American bonds, backed by the full faith and trust of the US government. If those bonds are not worth anything, we have worse problems than SS. The SS trust fund was started by Greenspan and Moynahan to deal with the baby boomers. It was not exactly genius. They increased the SS tax for boomers ,so they would pay their own SS. But that money was put into bonds.

Sorry man, someone has given you wrong information. The trust fund was created in 1939 when S.S. was created. The money was never put in any type of tradable bond. Again it's all an accounting gimmick.

 

[Flash]

Sorry man, someone has given you wrong information. The trust fund was created in 1939 when S.S. was created. The money was never put in any type of tradable bond. Again it's all an accounting gimmick.

What is the gimmick? Only the amount paid by SS taxes is used to pay SS benefits and only the surplus amount in special treasuries is used to cover the shortfall.